Delete emergency access

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known before the description is read. The description adds only the gloss 'revoke' and says nothing about irreversibility, what happens to the grantee's access, whether pending or confirmed relationships can both be removed, or required permissions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with the operation front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than tight, purposeful writing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a destructive delete with no output schema and zero parameter documentation; the description supplies none of the missing identifier semantics, permission requirements, or consequences of deletion. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke this safely without inspecting the underlying API.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters, and the description never mentions emer_id or explains the identity of the emergency-access record, let alone the opaque form/params/json_body fields. With no documentation in either the schema or the description, an agent has to guess which identifier to supply.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete/revoke an emergency-access relationship'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from read/update emergency-access siblings. However, it does not distinguish it from the near-identical sibling vaultwarden_post_delete_emergency_access, nor from vaultwarden_reject_emergency_access, so an agent must infer the difference from names alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when this should be used versus alternatives such as vaultwarden_post_delete_emergency_access, vaultwarden_reject_emergency_access, or vaultwarden_put_emergency_access. The word 'revoke' hints at a use case but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.